Mitchell et al v. Flagstaff, City of et al

Filing
220

1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Ruth Bradburn Mitchell;
Christopher Mitchell,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
13
14
City of Flagstaff; Roy Taylor,
Defendants.
15
Kenneth)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-11-8140-PCT-FJM
ORDER
16
17
We have before us a stipulated motion to seal certain documents related to plaintiffs’
18
motion for sanctions (doc. 214). In that motion, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted serious
19
allegations of impropriety against defendants’ counsel. We flatly rejected those allegations
20
and instead characterized plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion as “an attempt to distort facts, slander
21
opposing counsel, and mislead this court” (doc. 203 at 4). We denied the motion and
22
awarded defendants costs.
23
A party seeking to seal judicial records must “articulate compelling reasons supported
24
by specific factual findings” to overcome the “strong presumption” in favor of the public’s
25
interest in full disclosure. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79
26
(9th Cir. 2006). In support of the motion to seal the parties assert only that the motion for
27
sanctions was denied and the parties subsequently reached a settlement rendering the
28
1
allegations in the motion for sanctions moot. This is not a compelling reason to seal judicial
2
records.
3
slanderous allegations asserted against her, we believe that counsel is sufficiently exonerated
4
by our denial of the motion for sanctions and award of fees. We believe it is equally
5
important that the public understand the reason behind the award of fees as well as plaintiffs’
6
counsel’s questionable practices.
While we understand defendants’ counsel’s presumed desire to censor the
7
IT IS ORDERED DENYING the motion to seal (doc. 214).
8
DATED this 12th day of December, 2012.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

The Justia Federal District Court Filings & Dockets site republishes public litigation records retrieved from the US Federal District Courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Justia.